[Taxacom] morphology in molecular phylogeny

[John Grehan]

I can sympathize with Doug Yanega's observations although I have no
solution to offer. The trouble with 'garbage' is that, in some fields at
least, it depends on which research program is being practiced.
Dispersalist theorizing (with or without molecular clocks) is to me
quite a lot of garbage. On the other hand dispersalism is accepted by
99% of publishing biogeographers. Then one has, for example,
panbiogeography which is garbage to that 99% which is sufficiently
pervasive that peer review can operate as a very real form of censorship
and in some journals it even enters into editorial policy (and this kind
of problem is not limited to panbiogeography). The opportunity to
provide published counterpoints certainly would operate to provide more
immediate contrasts between different research programs with respect to
facts, theories, reasoning etc. At present this is usually limited to
submitting rebuttals or counterpoints to already published viewpoints.
Depending on editorial polity and perspective, such counterpoints may or
may not be feasible. For example, TREE gives a great deal of support to
molecular dispersalism whereas past efforts to publish on
panbiogeographic perspectives were opposed by the editor (at that time)
as a matter of editorial policy. One solution that is sometimes
successfully developed is the publication of a new journal or new
society that allows the necessary intellectual space (perhaps
'Cladistics' would be an example). Given the political nature of science
I doubt that there will be any overall effective political solution -
but I am always happy to be surprised.

John Grehan  

-----Original Message-----
From: taxacom-bounces at mailman.nhm.ku.edu
[mailto:taxacom-bounces at mailman.nhm.ku.edu] On Behalf Of Doug Yanega
Sent: Friday, January 19, 2007 1:09 PM
To: TAXACOM at MAILMAN.NHM.KU.EDU
Subject: Re: [Taxacom] morphology in molecular phylogeny

Mike Ivie wrote:

>Bad science is bad science, and happens in every field.  It is a 
>reflection of the scientist, not the technique.

[snip]

>I know people who do good work in molecular systematics who are also 
>excellent taxonomists.  I also know people who do terrible work in 
>morphological systematics who are morphologists.

I would suggest, then, that what we need more than anything is an
improvement in the rigor and quality of peer review. Obviously, the
status quo is letting too much garbage into the pipeline, if bad science
"happens in every field". People doing "terrible work" should NOT be
able to get it into print, EVER. It is an embarrasment and our
collective shame that things should be otherwise.

The counterargument - that only by allowing *everything* into print can
science be advanced (i.e., some things which initally appear ludicrous
may turn out to be true) - would only hold sway with me if there were
some sort of accountability built into the system; that is, if the
criticisms of a published work were included with it, so anyone
encountering the work would know what the scientific community thought
of it. As is, people seem to assume that anything in print is proven
fact, and unassailable. It is impossible to tell, at present, whether
any given work one finds in the literature is (1) agreed with by 99% of
the scientific community (2) disagreed with by 99% of the scientific
community, or (3) completely contentious, with two equal but opposed
camps supporting/denying its accuracy.

This is another reason to rethink how scientific publication is handled;
were it all done digitally, postscripts with supporting or refuting
evidence from other scientists could be appended in real time to all
publications. That way, bad science could still get into print, but once
there, there would be big red flags warning everyone as to just how bad
it is. Let the reader decide who to listen to, but give them all the
evidence and arguments up front.

Sincerely,
-- 

Doug Yanega        /Dept. of Entomology         /Entomology Research
Museum
Univ. of California - Riverside, Riverside, CA 92521-0314
phone: (951) 827-4315 (standard disclaimer: opinions are mine, not
UCR's)
              http://cache.ucr.edu/~heraty/yanega.html
   "There are some enterprises in which a careful disorderliness
         is the true method" - Herman Melville, Moby Dick, Chap. 82

_______________________________________________
Taxacom mailing list
Taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu
http://mailman.nhm.ku.edu/mailman/listinfo/taxacom